J.V. Ongkosuwito

Increased presence of Epstein–Barr virus DNA in ocular fluid samples from HIV negative immunocompromised patients with uveitis

AIMS To investigate whether routine testing for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is necessary in the examination of a patient with uveitis. METHODS Intraocular EBV DNA was determined in 183 ocular fluid samples taken from patients with AIDS and uveitis, HIV negative immunocompromised uveitis, acute retinal necrosis, toxoplasma chorioretinitis, intraocular lymphoma, anterior uveitis, and miscellaneous uveitis of unknown cause. In 82 samples from this group of patients paired serum/ocular fluid analysis was performed to detect local antibody production against EBV. Controls (n=46) included ocular fluid samples taken during surgery for diabetic retinopathy, macular pucker, or cataract. RESULTS Serum antibody titres to EBV capsid antigen proved to be significantly increased in HIV negative immunocompromised patients with uveitis (p<0.01) compared with controls. Local antibody production revealed only three positive cases out of 82 patients tested, two results were borderline positive and one patient had uveitis caused by VZV. EBV DNA was detected in three out of 46 control ocular fluid samples. In the different uveitis groups EBV DNA was noted, but was not significantly higher than in the controls, except in six out of 11 HIV negative immunocompromised patients (p=0.0008). In four out of these six cases another infectious agent (VZV, HSV, CMV, or Toxoplasma gondii) had previously been identified as the cause of the uveitis. CONCLUSIONS When comparing various groups of uveitis patients, EBV DNA was found more often in HIV negative immunocompromised patients with uveitis. Testing for EBV does not have to be included in the routine management of patients with uveitis, since indications for an important role of this virus were not found in the pathogenesis of intraocular inflammation.

Aetiological study of the presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome in the Netherlands

AIM To investigate whether presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome in the Netherlands is caused by Histoplasma capsulatum and whether other risk factors might play a role in the pathogenesis of this syndrome. METHODS 23 patients were clinically diagnosed as having presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome based on the following criteria: peripapillary atrophy, punched out lesions, a macular disciform lesion or scar in one eye without vitritis. As controls, 66 sex and age matched healthy volunteers were used. Serum samples from both patients and controls were tested for the presence of antibodies againstH capsulatum, Toxoplasma gondii, Toxocara canis et cati,Ascaris sp, and for the presence of antigens of Cryptococcus neoformans. Serum samples were also tested for the presence of autoantibodies against retinal or choroidal proteins. To investigate other risk factors, patients and controls were asked to fill in a health and travel related questionnaire. Ten patients with ocular toxoplasmosis were used as a disease control group. RESULTS None of the patients with presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome or controls had circulating antibodies directed against H capsulatum. No risk factors could be identified and no indications for autoimmunity and no evidence for the role of the other infectious agents could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS In a Dutch group of patients fulfilling the criteria of a disease currently named presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome, no risk factors or relation with the fungus H capsulatum could be detected.